role="main" class="main-container container js-quickedit-main-content" id="main-content">

November 14, 2018

42nd Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcript 2018-Nov-14 (PDF)

L048 - Wed 14 Nov 2018 / Mer 14 nov 2018

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L’ONTARIO

Wednesday 14 November 2018 Mercredi 14 novembre 2018

Orders of the Day

Safe and Supportive Classrooms Act, 2018 / Loi de 2018 pour des écoles sûres et axées sur le soutien

Introduction of Visitors

Wearing of pins

Decorum in chamber

Oral Questions

Ontario Power Generation

Ontario Power Generation

Government contract

Police

Police investigations

Forest industry

Education funding

Environmental protection

Long-term care

Health care

Curling championship

Anti-racism activities

Government accountability

Employment standards

Assistance to farmers

Heritage conservation

Taxation

Visitors

Notices of dissatisfaction

Private members’ public business

Introduction of Visitors

Members’ Statements

Diabetes

Phone It Forward campaign

Highway tolls

Darlington refurbishment project

Gun violence

Medical hub

Dysautonomia

Addiction services

Immigration francophone

Anti-Semitism

Visitor

Introduction of Bills

Safeguarding Our Information Act, 2018 / Loi de 2018 sur la protection de nos renseignements

Keeping Students Safe on School Buses Act (Highway Traffic Amendment), 2018 / Loi de 2018 renforçant la sécurité des élèves dans les autobus scolaires (modification du Code de la route)

Brownwood Holdings Limited Act, 2018

850148 Ontario Inc. Act, 2018

Visitor

Petitions

Employment standards

Public safety

Social assistance

Curriculum

Public safety

Indigenous affairs

Public safety

Employment standards

Public safety

Orders of the Day

Green Energy Repeal Act, 2018 / Loi de 2018 abrogeant la

Loi sur l’énergie verte

Adjournment Debate

Access to justice

Anti-racism activities

Environmental protection

The House met at 0900.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): We will begin this morning with a moment of silence for inner thought and personal reflection.

Prayers.

Orders of the Day

Safe and Supportive Classrooms Act, 2018 / Loi de 2018 pour des écoles sûres et axées sur le soutien

Resuming the debate adjourned on November 13, 2018, on the motion for second reading of the following bill:

Bill 48,

An Act to amend various Acts in relation to education and child care / Projet de loi 48, Loi modifiant diverses lois en ce qui concerne l’éducation et la garde d’enfants.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Further debate? I recognize the member for Kitchener South–Hespeler.

Mrs. Amy Fee: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Just to forewarn you a little bit, I do have quite the cold this morning so I will do my best to make it through the 20 minutes, but I may have to take some extra few breaks for water and that sort of thing during my 20 minutes. I’m certainly honoured, though, to get to rise this morning and speak to Bill 48, the Safe and Supportive Classrooms Act, especially as a former school board trustee. I’m also the daughter of a former kindergarten teacher and special education teacher.

I wholeheartedly support Minister Thompson’s bill. While I applaud Minister Thompson’s changes to protect students from teachers and early childhood educators who are found guilty of a sexual offence by having their licences revoked, and the requirements to best support new teachers around math, Mr. Speaker, this morning I am going to talk for most of my time about the proposed changes to the Education Act around policies and guidelines for the use of service animals in schools.

It’s certainly been mentioned in this Legislature many times that I have been advocating, along with my son Kenner, for better, more equitable access for service animals in our schools. I first came to Queen’s Park more than two years ago to start highlighting the need for provincial direction for the use of service animals in our classrooms, and on behalf of now-Premier Ford, during our campaign I made a promise to ensure adequate access to classrooms for children with service dogs.

I’ve lost count of how many people have approached me to say something along the lines of, “I can’t believe what’s happened to Kenner.” I’ve also had numerous children with service dogs and their families reach out to me to express how their service animals support them, and this morning I’m going to share with you some of their words and stories to help you understand why clear and consistent policy guidelines around the use of service animals in our schools is so key.

First, I’d like to tell you about a young boy who I first heard about one Sunday in the winter of 2016. I met Jack Baldwin’s grandmother at our church. She approached me to ask about my son Kenner and his service dog. You see, she was so excited for Jack’s future as he was about to get his service dog from the Lions Foundation. She was hopeful that having a service dog would support Jack in making strong friendships, while helping him through his school day and helping him with his overall mental health.

She asked me if Kenner’s service dog at that time—it was his first dog, Ivy; he now has another dog, Rickman—was in school with him. I said we were working through a process and I wasn’t sure if it was going to be accepted. Mr. Speaker, I will never forget the look that that grandmother had and the disappointment that I could see on her face that morning. She said she just assumed that schools were required to allow service dogs to attend class.

Now, fast-forward a few weeks and, in my role as a trustee, I found out about a family struggling to gain access to their son’s school with a service dog for school pick-ups and drop-offs. The boy, who turned out to be Jack, that same boy I’d heard about at church, had just received his autism assistant service dog Jenson through the Lions Foundation of Canada Guide Dogs. At that time, Jack’s mother, Ms. Donna Baldwin, approached the media to tell her story. This is from a Global News article: “As a first step, Jack’s mom took Jenson inside the school to drop off Jack—just for a few minutes, to help with the transition.”

The quote from Ms. Baldwin to Global News: “The next day I got a call saying that the dog was not allowed on school property.” As a trustee for the board, this came as a shock to me, and I brought my concerns forward several times around the board’s policy involving service dogs. The treatment of Jack also concerned me, knowing that children were not being treated equally, school by school, in that same board.

At that time, my son Kenner had already been having pick-ups and drop-offs, as well as visits during the day with his autism assistant service dog in the school, in that same board. While Kenner’s service dog has never been allowed to stay with Kenner at school, at that time, in 2016, I could walk Kenner to his classroom door with Ivy, and we would plan visits to the school and we would sit for lunch hour, maybe in the school lobby or in the library.

It was a way for Kenner to have time and get that benefit with his service dog while we were still waiting for the school administration to determine if Kenner needed Ivy in his classroom. I was also aware at that time of another boy, Brayden; I’ll tell you a little bit more about him later. He, too, has a service dog, and that service dog, too, could go visit in the school lobby during the school day in that same school board.

Eventually, Ms. Baldwin was told that she could drop off her son with the service dog at a specific set of school doors and that Jack was permitted to have a visit outside of the school during the school day. As Ms. Baldwin described to me, those visits meant that her son could lie down on the concrete and have hugs with Jenson. I’m just going to explain that a little bit to you: “Hugs” is a command that autism service dogs can have, because a lot of children with autism need a kind of deep pressure.

So that little boy would be outside of his school and ask his service dog to give him hugs while that boy was lying on the concrete with a dog on top of him, where my son and another boy in that same school board could have those visits inside their school. But for this young boy, he was told those visits had to be outside.

You may wonder what this mother tried to do to advocate for her child. She has certainly done a lot. She has reached out to many current and former members of this House. Mr. Speaker, when the Liberals were in power, she said she didn’t even receive one response from the education ministry on the treatment of her son, but within days of this government’s cabinet being sworn in, Minister Thompson personally called Ms. Baldwin to hear about her son’s situation. Minister Thompson heard that at the end of the last school year, two years after Ms.

Baldwin was first denied access to that school board property with her son’s service dog, Jack was granted a trial with Jenson in the classroom: a trial to see if the school board’s administration felt like Jack needed his service dog at school; this, even though medical professionals and Jack himself had told the board that he needed his service dog in school with him. At the end of that trial, the school board administration determined that Jack did not need his service dog with him at school.

The stress for Jack to try to help the school board understand how much he needs his service dog at school with him was overwhelming. Over the summer break, Jack’s mental health struggles, which had been progressively getting worse over the last two years, took an extreme turn. He had suicidal thoughts and even an attempt to end his own life. Now, this is coming from a boy who is 12 years old. It was then that Ms. Baldwin reflected on her conversations with Minister Thompson and decided to move her son from Kitchener to the minister’s riding. I am thrilled to report to you that he is doing much better.

For the first time, Jack has an educational assistant with him in the classroom, and she’s there full-time. He is doing grade level work—last year, he was a year behind—and he will soon have his service dog with him full-time in his classroom.

As for that other young boy I mentioned earlier, Brayden, he also has an autism assistance service dog, Gusto. He first attended school in Kitchener, just like Jack, but at a different school board. At that school board, he was allowed to have his service dog with him in class. But his family decided to move him to the other school board and just assumed that Brayden would be able to attend his new school with Gusto. They were extremely shocked, though, to find out that the board would determine if Brayden needed to have Gusto with him in the school.

So Brayden could make it through his school day, his mom decided to go to the front lobby of the school so that Brayden could have breaks with Gusto. Eventually his family, though, decided that was too challenging to have her there—his mom is a nurse and she was working full-time—to be able to do that, and they have started home-schooling their son. So because of those changes from board to board, this little boy is now out of the school system and is being home-schooled.

Mr. Speaker, I can tell you that Brayden is an amazing young boy. He does have autism. He is non-verbal, but he has found a way to communicate. He uses a method called rapid prompting method, RPM, and also will type things out to explain his feelings and answer questions and communicate with the world. I want to read to you a few things that Brayden has written about his service dog. The first is a poem:

In the hands of his boy

sitting and waiting for his boy to calm

He sees people all around

but his main focus is his distressed boy

He’s on constant alert and senses his boy’s emotions

He starts to feel the calm wash over his boy

So now it is time for his favourite—lick kisses.

This is from a book from National Service Dogs in Cambridge, where Brayden’s service dog is from:

“Gusto is my saving grace to my world. He gives security when I am feeling anxious. He gives independence by being tethered to him and holding his handle. I think it is amazing to walk with my dog and not hold mom or dad’s hands. When I am tethered to Gusto, I know where my body is at all times. This is the most amazing feeling ever....

“Gusto travels with me everywhere I go,” but he is home-schooled now, so he’s not going to school. “This makes going out in public easier. I don’t have people giving me bad stares, but good stares. Gusto helps me every day, so it is impossible only to pick one time that he has helped me.”

I hope Brayden’s words help you to understand how autism assistance service dogs help the kids that they’re with.

A young girl, Peyton, who happens to live in another province but has a Lions Foundation assistance service dog, reached out to me to tell me about how that dog is helping her in her school in rural Manitoba. She first got Floyd in early 2018, and he began attending school with her earlier this fall. So the little girl’s mother, Ms. McFee, told me that having Floyd attend school with Peyton has meant the world to them. She says he has quickly become Peyton’s best friend, and with him in school Peyton is now able to spend even more time in her classroom learning. She can now have purpose for her body movement breaks by saying that she’s taking Floyd for a walk.

Another young girl, Maya, who lives in Ottawa, is so proud of her autism assistance dog, Ivic. As her mom describes, Ivic is like a true friend for Maya. Also, having Ivic gave Maya’s family a chance to speak to her about how she has autism and that everyone is different. As her mom said, as far as Maya is concerned, if autism means she gets to have Ivic, then she is one lucky kid.

A young man with autism who my son Kenner looks up to and admires also has an autism service dog, and that’s Cliff McIntosh. Cliff has taken his service dog to school for many years with him, and he describes Basil as being the one that keeps him calm and safe, and also allows him to focus on his schoolwork.

An issue that I’d like to point out, though, is that while less than half of the school boards currently have policies in place around service animals, for the ones that do have policies in place, they can vary drastically. For instance, the extensive policy in one board covers many types of service dogs but doesn’t cover diabetic alert dogs.

Some policies mention that a school staff member may be trained to support a child who is unable to handle the service dog themselves, while another—which does happen to be that same school board where Jack Baldwin and Brayden used to attend—states that “when a student is not able to handle the dog, the dog will not be considered a certified service dog for the purposes of these procedures.”

Mr. Speaker, when you hear someone talking about being a handler or handling a service dog, it means they’re simply the one holding the leash, giving the verbal commands to the dog so that they can perform the task that they need to. I have great concern for the wording in that policy and what that could actually mean for a student. For a student like Brayden, who I mentioned is non-verbal, he may never be able to give commands to his dog and will likely always need support with his service animal, but a policy like that appears to put a major hurdle in front of him ever having his service dog in his classroom with him.

Certainly, it’s for those reasons and many others that I’m honoured to be standing here today to talk to you about Minister Thompson’s bill to amend the Education Act to allow policies and guidelines to be put in place for the school boards around what their policies should look like for the use of service animals in schools.

I’d like to tell you about another little boy before I end my time today. In the member from Burlington’s riding, there is a young boy, Darius, who also has an autism assistance service dog. He, too, is struggling to gain access into his classroom full-time with his service dog, Idyll. After a lengthy—as his mother calls it—“battle” with the school board, Idyll is currently allowed to spend half of the school day with Darius in the classroom. But despite Darius advocating for himself, along with Ms. Hamlet, Idyll is not permitted to stay with him all day at school.

Speaking this week to Ms. Hamlet, she said that Idyll is also not allowed on the school bus with Darius. It means she either needs to drive the two of them to school together or drive the service dog to school while Darius takes the bus in the morning. Then Ms. Hamlet needs to pick up the dog by 11:35 each morning. It’s making it impossible for her to have a job during the school day. Now, Darius himself wanted me to know that, “When I get upset and start to freak out, Idyll helps me calm down and gives me a hug. It would help me and make me very happy to have him with me all day. It would make my day better by 90% to have Idyll with me at school.”

Something else I hear about from families is allergies and phobias. To me, these are very critical considerations for all school boards and staff to work through when any family comes forward with a request for a service animal to be used in a classroom. In many schools across Ontario and our country, these are issues that have been dealt with in a variety of ways to support everyone involved.

For instance, if a school is large enough, the child with a service dog may be in a different classroom than a child with a phobia or an allergy. In a smaller school, I’ve spoken with service dog providers who have experts go in and look at the ventilation system in the classroom to determine where in the classroom would be best for the service dog to sit with the child, versus the child that has the allergy.

In another case, I’ve heard from an educational assistant from British Columbia who had a child in the classroom with a fear around dogs, and when a child came forward needing a service dog in the classroom, they were a little nervous about how that was going to work through. In the end, having that calm presence of the service dog in the classroom, the child in that room with the fear no longer has a fear of dogs.

A school board here in Ontario has also done an air quality test. That study looked at the classroom air without a service dog and the classroom air with a service dog, as well as outside air. It found that there is a minimal increase in dander allergens in the classroom with a service dog, and for it to be typical of that of outside air.

I’m very happy that our education minister and our Premier are taking a look at these concerns, though, and making sure that this is part of the education consultation process that we are doing at fortheparents.ca. Again, I encourage all families, staff and people across this province to take

part in that consultation process, to put their thoughts forward on the many ideas that they have for the education system, as well as on the use of service animals.

As I end, Mr. Speaker, I want to just tell you a little bit about why I ran to be a school board trustee in 2014, because it highlights why this issue is so passionate to me. I ran then for a number of reasons, especially to ensure support for children with special education needs and also to support our educators who are trying to help our students. As I mentioned earlier, also my mom was a teacher.

I’ve heard from many teachers who have talked to me about the struggles they face trying to best support children with special needs in their classrooms and then balance out their day with all of the children in their classrooms. That is why it is so critical to me that we have the supports in place to best support these students.

Now, I certainly know—and I absolutely love my son Kenner—how challenging his anxiety and behaviours can be to work through in a classroom for a teacher and how much time that can take out of a teacher’s day. It’s sort of an added reason why I’ve been long advocating for the use of service animals in schools.

I’ve heard from trustees, teachers and educational assistants in school boards where service dogs are being used in classrooms, and they’ve told me about the huge impact those service dogs have had on not just the student they are supporting but the whole class.

While educators and service dog trainers experienced with using service dogs in classrooms will tell you that certainly the first day or two can be a little bit of a challenge and hectic as they kind of get used to the new world, things do become easier as the child who needed that extra support is then getting what they need, and because a service dog is so calm and quiet, everyone else just kind of forgets that they are there; the service dog just becomes part of that new routine in the classroom.

As I have about 30 seconds left, I just have one other thing that I will read to you. It’s an opinion piece from the Waterloo Region Record, from a retired special education teacher. She wrote, “I am disappointed a support dog was denied to a student with an autism spectrum disorder (ASD). For a student with observable needs (a wheelchair, hearing aids or a Braille system), our boards and community have little difficulty providing funding to level the playing field. But many ASD students have complex developmental needs that cannot be met with these approaches.” That’s from Karen Todd-Bustamante.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): Questions and comments?

Ms. Marit Stiles: I want to start by thanking the member from Kitchener South–Hespeler for sharing with us a little more information about the issue, particularly related to this bill around service animals but also her own personal experience. I really appreciate hearing more about that. Thank you for sharing.

It’s interesting because of course we were both elected, I think, in 2014 as school board trustees. It is an interesting thing. I just wanted to start by saying that hearing about why somebody runs for a position like that—frankly, a position in our local democracy that is literally the least valued and a very hard job, actually, and not something that people do for the glory but something you do because something’s motivating you. Often, it’s a very personal thing.

I know for myself it had to do with the closure, potentially, of some local schools in my neighbourhood and also some of the issues I had as a parent with my kids in schools and what I found to be a really complex—overly complex—education system, particularly when you’re looking to support students with special needs. I really believe that that is something we also have to grapple with: how we continue to support parents in better understanding and navigating the education system, particularly if they have children with special education needs. So I want to thank the member opposite for her comments and for her advocacy around this issue. I think it’s really important.

I’m looking forward, frankly, to taking this to committee and having a chance to understand better to make sure we can actually make really good, solid policy that works for boards, that works for families, that works for kids. I’m looking forward to being able to do that with the member opposite, hopefully, and learn more as we go forward.

I also just want to say that the only hesitation I have, the only concern I have around this is, I really wish this was a separate piece of legislation that we could give enormous time and more time and more attention to, because I think it really deserves it.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): Further questions and comments?

Ms. Andrea Khanjin: I want to thank the member from Kitchener South–Hespeler for her incredible work. We are so lucky to have her as part of our caucus. Her tremendous experience, not only as a kindergarten teacher, a special education teacher, a school trustee but also a mom of a child with autism, really complements our caucus, and I’m just so proud to have her as one of my colleagues and of all the work she’s done on this file. So thank you.

Back in my home riding, we’ve seen the positive outcomes of service dogs in the classroom. We have COPE Service Dogs in Barrie. They have said research shows that canines in the classroom improves grades, improves learning skills and decreases suspensions. They’ve been at this for quite some time from when they were first founded. The objective of COPE Service Dogs was back when they were first founded in Germany. The first service dogs were introduced in Germany in 1920 for war veterans who had lost their eyesight. They’ve taken that model and brought that to Barrie, Ontario, to establish COPE Service Dogs, which stands for “Canine Opportunity People Empowerment.”

They are really well-known in the community. They’re well-known for success stories, like the success story of Steven and Ruby. Steven was born with cognitive, balance and mobility challenges. The doctors said he would never be able to walk on his own. Eventually, with some physiotherapy and some assistance, he was able to walk a bit but he needed assistive devices. However, when COPE Service Dogs came into his life, he was able to walk without assistance simply with the leash that he was holding with his dog. So his success story with Ruby is incredible.

I think we need to look back on the member from Kitchener South–Hespeler and the stories that she had mentioned about Jack, Brayden, Peyton, Maya and Darius, and make sure that these types of stories don’t happen to future children. The Progressive Conservatives highly believe in equality of opportunity, not a quality of outcome, and we have to make sure our future students have the full potential to achieve everything they can. I’m so proud of all the work our Minister of Education has done on this bill, and the member for Kitchener South–Hespeler.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): Further questions and comments?

Mr. Joel Harden: Like my colleague from Davenport, I also want to congratulate the member from Kitchener South–Hespeler for telling us the story about what motivated her to run at the school board level and what motivates her to be motivated in this particular piece of legislation today.

Autism and helping kids with autism in our schools is so important. What I’ve learned in my short amount of time here is that a number of us from all sides of this House are devoted to doing that. I have met with two parents, Speaker, over the last couple of months. One parent mentioned to me that they were number 1,038 on the list for supportive services for autism in our area, in Ottawa, and the other parent mentioned that they were number 732 on the list.

The way it works in Ottawa is that you can decide to have direct funding or you can decide to go through the route of the Children’s Hospital of Eastern Ontario. But in both cases, you end up having a child with significant needs, often at a preschool level, waiting for services, and parents anxious to figure out what will happen to their child.

So we know, Speaker, what happens in that context. What happens in that context is that parents with means will avail themselves of extended services, and people without means can’t. That’s what troubles me, to be honest. I like the idea of service dogs being able to be in our schools to help kids with autism. But what troubles me is that we’re in a moment now in Ontario where too many parents, parents that I meet in our constituency office every time I go home back to the riding, are waiting, languishing and not being able to avail themselves of other needs their kids have with autism.

There’s only one way out of that, Speaker, and it doesn’t happen by shrinking the revenues of the province, so I invite my friends opposite to consider what happens when you cut corporate taxes and shrink revenues for the province of Ontario by $1 billion. I want you to make the link between taxes and services, because parents whose kids have autism where I live will not be able to access services if they can’t afford it privately. That’s what happens, and we need to be mindful of that.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): Further questions and comments? The member from York Centre.

I remember that a couple of years ago, the principal asked my mom to teach a subject that she wasn’t familiar with. I think it was economics. She struggled with it so much. She struggled with it to the point where she had difficulty going to school, because she felt she was unprepared. She felt that she didn’t have sufficient background to teach economics. In fact, she has fallen on some hard times as a result.

I’ve been meaning to say this ever since I got to the House: Teachers change the world, and I’m proud to support them.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): I now return to the member from Kitchener South–Hespeler for final comments.

Mrs. Amy Fee: Thank you to the member from York Centre. Certainly, teachers do change the world, so thank you. Also, thank you to the members from Davenport, Barrie–Innisfil and Ottawa Centre, as well, for their comments this morning.

I just want to end off, with my final two minutes, just to tell you a little bit more about Darius and an incident that happened that his mom described to me this week in school. Ms. Hamlet told me about a recent incident. She said it happened a few weeks ago in the school, and Darius was upset. He had left class and locked himself in the washroom. He would not stop crying or settle down for almost two hours. She said she happened to be in the school’s community room at that time with her son’s service dog, because he wasn’t allowed in the classroom during that part of the day. The school’s special education teacher went to find her, and she went and brought Idyll to Darius.

Within five minutes of Darius being with Idyll, he had calmed down and was able to go back to class and learn. That is exactly why I’ve been advocating for service animals in the classroom. It’s to make the lives easier, not only for the child with the disability, but for their classmates and for the educators themselves to be able to get through the school day and make it better for everyone.

As I end off, I definitely want to say thank you to our education minister, Minister Thompson. I know her phone call in the summer to Ms. Baldwin absolutely meant the world to her—for the education minister to take the time to speak to that mother about what her child was going through. Thank you also to her parliamentary assistant, the member from Niagara West, for everything that those two have done to bring this piece of legislation forward. I just want to thank them for all that they’re doing and definitely for that consultation process.

Again, the consultation is online at fortheparents.ca. I’d like to encourage all members of this House as well as all Ontarians to take

part in that consultation process.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): Further debate? The member from London–Fanshawe.

Ms. Teresa J. Armstrong: Well, thank you, Speaker, for that wonderful introduction.

It really is my pleasure this morning to talk about Bill 48. The

short title that we have is the Safe and Supportive Classrooms Act. But before I start getting into the bill, I want to acknowledge, first and foremost, the wonderful work that teachers do in the classroom, and such an important role they have in developing young minds in our children’s lives.

I know my granddaughter—when she started kindergarten a couple years ago, Miss Grant was her teacher. She idolized Miss Grant and that made her experience so much more positive, so much more informative and so much more educational. I want to, first and foremost, again, acknowledge the important role that teachers have in the development of our children, both emotionally and, of course, intellectually.

I know, myself, I had a wonderful experience when I was a kid growing up. I still remember my teachers’ names in kindergarten. Mrs. Bladek: I want to say thank you, Mrs. Bladek, for being such a wonderful role model for me when I was a young student growing up at St. Mary’s school. Mrs. Groschack, I want to thank you for your kindness. I met Mrs. Groschack just recently at a retirement party for teachers, the RTO London chapter, and she was there. I want to thank Mr. Pusse. He was our gym teacher and he was very active and athletic and he always promoted good physical activity in my education experience as a child.

There are so many wonderful examples of positive things that are happening in our schools, and I attribute that to our teachers. But things have changed over the years, and what has changed is the kind of support students receive and the kind of resources teachers have. A lot of those things have come to roost when we’re talking about the Safe and Supportive Classrooms Act.

There are many things in this bill. It truly is a large bill. I would have hoped that the government would have maybe taken some of those pieces out and given it the attention that it needs by giving it its own bill rather than lumping it together with these pretty substantial, important changes that we’re going to be dealing with in our education system—giving that attention so that we can get it right and we can make sure we have the opportunity for public input.

There are so many things in here. I don’t know what the government’s intentions are when it comes to bringing it to committee, but I hope there’s going to be a lot of consultation. I hope the committee is going to travel as well, because up until now, there hasn’t been a lot of travelling on bills; people have to come to Toronto. I know in London, when we’re talking about special education and special needs, there is a lot of concern around that.

I personally know—I know many teachers, but this one particular teacher has just recently graduated from teachers’ college and started her new career as a teacher. She is full of energy, excitement and can’t wait to get in that classroom—a great attitude. She’s a great role model, and I look up to her because she’s kind and considerate and she knows what she’s doing; she’s an expert in her field. She went to school for six years to become a teacher and was so dedicated to that career path.

Now she’s in the classroom and she’s dealing with seven or eight—those 12-year-olds, preteens. What she has described to me is concerning. She has children in her classroom who have special needs; there are about seven children in her classroom out of about 28 or 30. I think that’s a big percentage of the total amount of students. When she first started in September, she had one EA, one educational assistant, for seven students. Because of resources, she now only has a half-time EA for seven students. It’s very difficult. She is very stressed, she is overwhelmed, and she needs help. And so do those students.

That is another piece of this legislation I hope this government is going to address in a separate way: how to resource and support, first and foremost, students and teachers so that they can do their jobs. This government is very concerned about having parents part of the whole equation when it comes to education, and we are as well. But that is also going to help parents, right?

I’m sure now, when you get a phone call at home, if you have a special-needs child—and the member from Kitchener South–Hespeler might understand a little bit of this—parents are now the go-to when there are situations that are unmanageable or out of control in the classroom. That is not a good thing. Of course, when parents drop their child off, they think, “Okay, they’re there. They’re going to be doing their work. It’s a safe environment. They’re going to get the help they need, and I can go to work and focus on my job.” But that’s not the case.

There are many parents called during the day to come pick up their child because the school, the classroom—the resources aren’t there to help that child. I see the member nodding that that’s absolutely true.

So, absolutely, this bill needs to be discussed. But the bigger picture is, many of these problems could be addressed if we had the resources and supports in the classroom for students, for teachers and for parents—because those three groups are all involved.

I can give you an example. I popped into a school in October and saw a scarf on the ground, so I picked it up and thought, “Oh, I’ll go return it to the lost and found.” As I was in the school, I went to the office, and while I was there waiting to drop it off at the lost and found—because you wouldn’t want someone’s ears to get cold in the middle of winter—there was a disruption in the office. So I was waiting to figure out where this lost and found was to drop it off, but there were lots of things going on. There was a young student in one of the rooms, and I could see he was physically agitated.

I overheard the supervisor who was in charge of that situation say, “You have to go home.” They were trying to calm the student down and were unsuccessful. Another young student walked in, and the supervisor said, “You have to take your brother home. He can’t stay in school today. I’ve talked to your mother. She can’t be released from work, and you have to take your brother home.” I thought, “How is this young girl”—she looked about 12, and he looked about 10—“going to handle her brother? Where does she get the knowledge and training and experience to handle her sibling with those complex needs?

She’s going to have to walk him home. It’s not the time for the buses.” I was just amazed. I thought, “This is not right.”

This isn’t what educators and schools should be having to decide—calling parents, who can’t get off work or who can’t make it in on time, to come and get their child.

So on a bigger scale, we are not doing as much as we should be doing to help students in classrooms, teachers delivering the education, and parents when they drop off their kids. I really feel that that’s something we’re neglecting to talk about in a real way and address. Like I said, some of these things that are in this bill could actually help stop that.

That’s one example. There are many examples, and I know we all have our own stories about how there’s not enough help in schools.

I met with a parent just last week, during constituency week. She came into my office and said she’s looking for child care—before- and after-school programs. She’s a working mom. She travels. Her husband is also a working person. So she needs to have the before- and after-school daycare. I want to put that on record because I told her I would mention this in the Legislature. She wants it to be a drop-off at the school and a pickup after school. She wants a safe environment for child care. In the board where I am, in my riding, two schools amalgamated.

So one school basically doubled the population in attendance, but they didn’t make provisions on child care, before and after. So she had to find private child care. She didn’t want to do that. She was scrambling to find that. Her little one is four years old and she is not happy. It’s not the ideal situation and she knows that things can be better for him. She’s working with the school and, I’ll tell you, she said, “I’m a working parent. I’ve worked so hard. All I want is a place for my child where I know I’m not going to have to worry.” And because it’s a private situation, she is concerned. She cried.

She cried in my office. She broke down crying, and she said, “I don’t know what else to do. I’m doing all of the right things. Why aren’t there enough child care spaces to accommodate kids when they go to school?” It’s clear that those things could be dealt with when you know the numbers in school. That’s another one I wanted to talk about.

The other thing I’d like to talk about is the sex ed curriculum. There is a

part in here, of course, of this bill, that needs to be addressed, under provisions, to sexual misconduct around teachers. It’s important; it needs to be in there. But we also have to educate our students so that they can acknowledge when they’re being taken advantage of. The sex ed curriculum of 2015 gave students those tools.

So we’re saying that this should not be happening in our classrooms—absolutely, we know that—but then, when students experience that abuse outside of the classroom—bullying from other students—what are some of those things that that new sex ed curriculum would have given them an advantage or even the information on? We have to educate our children and give them, arm them, with information, so that they understand when things are happening to them, what to do: that when somebody is sexting something, they know that that’s inappropriate and they know who to talk to and where to go.

When they’re being bullied in school because of an LGBTQ issue, they need to understand it’s not their fault; they need to know where the resources are.

Those things are concerning when we don’t have that education in school. That needs to be a fundamental piece. When you’re telling teachers and students that those things aren’t appropriate on any level, we need to arm people with information and education so that the person who is experiencing it understands that there’s support for them and there are resources for them to go to, and that they’re not alone. They’re not going to stay quiet, keep quiet, and feel like something’s wrong, that they don’t know where to go. Part of that, the sex ed curriculum—I think it’s a fault of this government to not continue it until they decided what changes they wanted to have happen.

Those are the two things I wanted to bring up that were very—the child care piece; then the special needs piece; and sex education, when we talk about arming our children with the right tools, the appropriate reactions when these things happen, where you can find help. That is huge.

That is huge in society today, because the phones that young people carry—I have granddaughters at the age of 18 months. They already know how to—they grab the phone, accidentally, and they know to touch the phone. They know to touch the phone; they know how to turn it on. I’m amazed. They know when it rings. When the phone rings, they’ll say, “Grandpa,” and they’ll give me the phone. They’ll come and grab me the phone and they’ll say, “Grandpa, grandpa—grandpa is calling grandma when I’m with them. They’re very aware and very smart. Our generation today is highly informed as to what is happening in our world because of technology and because of the exposure they have.

It’s a responsibility. We have a responsibility in our society to make sure we inform them of this device and the negative outcomes that can happen when this device isn’t used properly, when people are messaging you things that are not healthy, when they’re bullying you on these devices. It can be, I’m sure, a very lonely time for someone who thinks the whole world has read this awful bullying message. Where do they go? I think we need to do better.

I don’t know how long this government is going to take to make up their mind on what the new sex ed curriculum is going to look like, the physical health and physical education piece, but they better get it sooner than later because there are many, many children who need help. The phone line to call in—I call it the snitch line. Why not have consultations around the province, talking to people? Technology is great, but when you hear someone’s story and you hear the pain in their voice, or you hear the sincerity in what they are saying, you understand the impact it had in their lives, be it a student, be it a parent or be it a teacher.

Typing it out or phoning it in—what are you going to do, spend half an hour on the phone talking about your whole situation, your experience? It’s kind of a demeaning process, from my perspective. I think having a face-to-face when it comes to this important issue is really the better approach, as opposed to a phone line or a survey, or going online. Those things could definitely be part of the process, but not the only process, because it does speak to access. If someone can’t make it to that consultation, they can pick up the phone; they can go online. But leaving that piece out I don’t think is helpful and I don’t think gives the full picture of what this government can do better.

I do want to end off by saying that there are problems with this bill, of course, when we look at the College of Teachers and some of the powers that the government is going to have around that. Bringing it as an omnibus bill I don’t think serves the Legislature well; I don’t think it serves students, parents and teachers well.

I think there could have been a better approach to this. I know this government is in a hurry. I hope this is not going to be a time-allocated bill. I’ll put that on the record as well, Speaker. I hope it’s not going to be time-allocated because this is a very important topic. If we can’t take the time in this Legislature to debate our children’s future, then there is a problem. There is a problem with this government’s vision of what they want to do pushing their agenda.

If we can’t take the time to talk about this, as many members that want to get up and speak to it and get on record—that is the other thing I talked about the other day: You are the government. You have the authority—I’m not going to say “power,” because power sometimes is misused. You have the authority to pass legislation, but you also have the responsibility to listen to other people’s voices, so that if my constituents weren’t able to get on your snitch line or your online surveys, they’re going to have the opportunity, as I talked about today, to speak through me. I bring their voices here.

I know every member in our caucus—all 40 members—will want to talk to this bill, because we believe that we need to take time when we’re talking about our future generation, our children. We need to understand what they’re going through. It’s not just a quick fix on legislation and pat ourselves on the back and give ourselves applause for the good things we’ve done. We want to make sure that this legislation actually works and does the work that is intended. It’s not just about politics. I hope that this government will not time-allocate it. If anything, do not time-allocate this bill when it comes to children’s needs.

I just want to wrap up by saying thank you for the time to speak and again, thank you for all the work that teachers and students and parents do to make our communities better.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): Questions and comments?

Mr. Ross Romano: Thank you, everyone, for your comments on this. I think we have to start off asking ourselves, what is it that we’re talking about here? What we’re talking about is the health and safety and well-being of our children in all of our schools. We’re talking about ensuring that there are safe places for our children to learn and be educated in, and we’re ensuring that there’s zero tolerance for any type of abuse against our children.

We are talking about ensuring that parents have a say in ensuring that their children are safe when they go to school. We are talking about ensuring that teachers are accountable for their actions and that there will be zero tolerance when it comes to any type of abuse of our children. We’re talking about making sure that our children have the tools they need to be able to learn in a safe and responsible way.

I find it difficult—and I appreciate the member from London–Fanshawe’s comments. But this is a bill geared towards the safety of our children and the rights of our parents. To take shots at the government through consultation processes—this is about our kids. If you support the health and safety and well-being of our children, then I would ask you to support this bill. I would ask you to stop politicizing and to care about what matters most: ensuring that our kids can go to school in a safe environment, and ensuring that our parents can send their children to school every day knowing that they’re going to be safe. That’s what matters most.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): Further questions and comments?

Ms. Bhutila Karpoche: I’d like to thank my colleague the member from London–Fanshawe for her comments on this bill. I think she hit the key points in terms of what is really lacking in this bill.

The member opposite talked about the safety of our children and said to stop politicizing the bill. I think what the member opposite doesn’t understand is that parents and students across Ontario are telling us that they need to have the modern sex ed curriculum in their classrooms. All of us remember when students were right outside this building, on the front lawn of Queen’s Park, holding a rally, asking why this government refuses to include student voices in a piece of legislation and a dramatic policy change that impacts their lives and their well-being.

I think all of us have received hundreds, if not thousands, of emails and phone calls about the dramatic changes that are occurring in our education system.

If we truly want to create classrooms that are safe and supportive for our students, then what we need to do first is listen to the students. We need to find out from them what it is that we can do to support them and then take it from there. I don’t think this top-down approach that we have seen from this government time and time again is going to make any difference to students’ lives.

I want to thank the member again for doing an excellent job of pointing out some of the key areas that are missing in this bill.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): Further questions and comments?

Mr. Sheref Sabawy: Today I’m standing to speak about this piece of legislation, and the main concern I have is that parents have to be comfortable sending their kids to school. When I go to work, I have to be feeling safe about my children. I should not be thinking every few minutes or every hour about how safe he or she would be in the school. So I think that adding more security and more safety to the classes is imperative. It’s an important item, to have the peace of mind for people to be able to go to work.

As a professor, I used to teach, and I worked on campus and saw students staying till 1 o’clock, 2 o’clock or 3 o’clock in the morning, doing work on their projects and their assignments. I just wonder how safe it is to stay till 1 o’clock in the morning on campus. I think that shouldn’t be an issue at all. Any legislation that will be able to make the environment safer for students should be approved by everybody. That’s my thinking.

The other point we need to talk about is, the new legislation gives not only the parents of the students, but also teachers, the safety and protection they need to be able to give an environment for the students to innovate and feel safe. I think this government legislation is very important. We are taking action to help ensure that students and children who have been the subject of alleged sexual abuse or acts or child pornography by educators have access to the support they need after the fact.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): Further questions and comments?

Mr. Joel Harden: I just wanted to rise again speaking to this bill so I could be on the record saying from teachers in my riding and from all over the province that I think it’s a bit rich that the government wants to put an emphasis on these things at a time when the school infrastructure is crumbling all around us.

I want to take my time to ask a sarcastic math test because, quite frankly, the capacities of teachers where I’m from are not in question for me. So I want to ask my fellow parliamentarians on the other side to fulfill this math test for me: When the previous executive of Hydro One made $6 billion a year and you lamented it and you fired him and he makes $11 billion a year because he’s going to cash out his stock options, have you saved the public less or more money?

When we learn that Alykhan Velshi, somebody who used to be a high-ranking Conservative, is going to be fired, likely at a cost of $500,000 to the people of Ontario, after working for one day, and that very amount of money could be used to maintain the essential services of Pro Bono Ontario, which saves the province $5 million a year, what is the better investment?

Ms. Lindsey Park: Point of order.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): Excuse me. I recognize the member from Durham on a point of order.

Ms. Lindsey Park: Thank you, Speaker. I just question the relevance of this to the bill being debated.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): I was listening carefully to the tie-in. I will allow the member to continue but to be very cautious of your line of thought.

Mr. Joel Harden: I think I’ve offended my friends’ sensibilities, and do you know what? Arbitrary math tests for talented people are offensive. So if you’re offended, you’re making my point.

My question is, why are we taking time out of this Legislature’s work to ridicule our teachers when we should be supporting them with funding, with support and with respect? You made my point.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): Back to the member from London–Fanshawe for final comments.

Ms. Teresa J. Armstrong: I want to thank the member from Sault Ste. Marie. It’s always good to hear him speak in the Legislature. Also, I’d like to thank the members from Parkdale–High Park, Mississauga–Erin Mills and Ottawa Centre.

The member from Sault Ste. Marie talked about how this shouldn’t be a partisan issue. I think I was very delicate when I described what I was talking about. Sometimes people are very defensive even when you do give considerate feedback, and I understand that. I get where you’re coming from, but it wasn’t a partisan intent, so I’ll just clear that up for you.

Parkdale–High Park talked about the students’ voices. I think that’s part of the piece that I brought out, that when we’re changing the sex ed curriculum, did we ask the people it’s affecting? Did we ask kids? You know, if you ask a child a question, they give you an honest answer. They don’t hold back. You can actually then create legislation around those honest answers. When I was debating, I saw some of the pages intently nodding their heads. I wonder what they’re thinking. You should ask them about sex ed education and health and physical education.

The other one, Ottawa Centre: The member makes a good point. If this government is offended by being asked to be accountable for their numbers in this Legislature, why wouldn’t a professional teacher who has had six years of education be taken aback by being asked to take a math test, right? I understand that this government, when there was a briefing, didn’t really know what the math test would look like and didn’t, from my understanding, have examples of jurisdictions that actually have this math test. It was only after the fact that they came out with some other jurisdictions—I think it’s in the UK—that may have had it.

Again, when you’re making legislation and using it as a punishment or to ridicule someone in a profession, at least give us the answers of how you’re going to have that math test laid out so people are prepared.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): Further debate?

Mrs. Robin Martin: It’s my pleasure to rise today to speak in support of Bill 48, the Safe and Supportive Classrooms Act. I will be sharing my time with the esteemed member from Barrie–Springwater–Oro-Medonte.

The legislation proposes amendments to a number of acts, including the Ontario College of Teachers Act, the Early Childhood Educators Act, the Teaching Professions Act and the Education Act, and it will keep students in Ontario and in my riding of Eglinton–Lawrence safer by making common-sense reforms to teacher regulation in the province of Ontario. It will also ensure that teachers and students alike are more prepared for the return of fundamental math instruction, and reform the governance structure of the Ontario College of Teachers.

But before I go any further into those details, I want to briefly touch on the support for students with special needs in the legislation, as this issue is also very close to my heart as a mother of a child on the autism spectrum. This part of the legislation, as we heard earlier, was inspired by the tireless advocacy of my colleague the member from Kitchener South–Hespeler, who we just heard from. I want to thank her for her dedication to this issue. Her son Kenner, as she said, had a service dog to assist with his autism, and the local school board refused to allow him to have his service dog in class.

The Fee family took this case to the Ontario Human Rights Tribunal, but were ultimately unsuccessful.

From her comments this morning, which were mostly the comments of students, we know that her family isn’t the only one struggling with this issue. I can personally attest to the therapeutic importance of the unconditional love that a dog gives to us all, and especially how important that is to children with autism. My daughter’s best friend is our chocolate Lab, Maddie, and she has been a very important member of our family and helped my daughter control her emotions, which is very difficult for some children with autism.

Under the Safe and Supportive Classrooms Act, there will finally be fair, open and consistent processes to be followed when families make requests for service animals to accompany their children at school. All publicly funded school boards in Ontario will have a locally developed and publicly available service animal policy in place by September 2019, based on policies and guidelines established by the Ministry of Education. This is good news for families across the province with special needs.

Mr. Speaker, I have covered that portion of the legislation. I want to turn to the first part, making our schools safer. I mentioned earlier that this legislation contains a number of common-sense reforms. If passed, it will guide the discipline committees of the Ontario College of Teachers and the College of Early Childhood Educators in revoking an educator’s certificate for committing any act of sexual abuse of a student or child where the discipline committees of the colleges have found the educator guilty of such acts.

It will also allow the government, through regulation, to prescribe other acts of a sexual nature prohibited under the Criminal Code that would result in mandatory revocation of an educator’s certificate.

I am sure that many Ontarians already expect that this would be the case. If you’re an individual in a trusted position of authority like a teacher and you commit

an act of sexual abuse, you should lose your ability to teach in the province of Ontario. But it is not the case right now, and as legislators, I believe that we have an obligation to fix it.

Something else that we have heard a lot about from parents and talked about here is fixing the declining math scores in this province. EQAO data released in August 2018 shows that 39% of grade 3 students and 51% of grade 6 students did not meet the provincial math standard. In grade 9, 55% of students enrolled in applied math did not meet the standard. Those are appalling numbers, and we have to do something about it.

The opposition’s solution to falling math scores is simply to eliminate the test. Their election platform called for the elimination of EQAO testing on the theory that if we don’t measure the results, math scores won’t decline or maybe people just won’t know that they’re declining. On this side of the House, we’re taking a very different approach. Our government has already taken steps to have teachers transition away from teaching discovery math and return to the basic fundamentals of mathematics instruction.

But there is certainly more that can be done to improve math in Ontario schools. If passed, this legislation will require new teaching college candidates in the province of Ontario to pass a basic math test before receiving certification, ensuring they are both better prepared and more confident when it comes to teaching basic mathematics to their future students. I don’t think this is too much to ask of our next generation of teachers.

It supports the work that the government is already doing to improve student performance in science, technology, engineering and math—the STEM courses—which we all know are critical to success and the success of our students and our children in the 21st century. This will better prepare our next generation of students for the jobs and careers in the knowledge economy of the future.

I also want to briefly touch on the changes to the governance of the Ontario College of Teachers proposed in Bill 48. As a self-governing body, the Ontario College of Teachers is required to regulate itself in the public interest. The current governance model includes 23 members of the college elected by their peers and 14 members of the public who are appointed by the government of Ontario. Genuine concerns have been raised about the inherent conflict of interest associated with teachers having the majority vote on the council of their regulator, including a September 2011 report commissioned by the Ontario College of Teachers itself.

That’s why the proposed legislation will repeal current provisions in the Ontario College of Teachers Act that set the specific size and composition of the council, replacing it with a framework that allows the number of elected and appointed members to be prescribed in regulation. If passed, these amendments will be proclaimed into force only after the Ontario College of Teachers’s current governance review is completed, giving the government time to consider that report before acting.

In short, Mr. Speaker, this legislation will keep students safe by making common-sense reforms to teacher discipline, ensure students and teachers alike are more prepared for fundamental math instruction, make it easier and more predictable for students with special needs to bring service animals into the classroom, and reform the governance of the Ontario College of Teachers to ensure an appropriate balance on the governing council between elected and appointed members. I look forward to supporting this legislation when it comes to a vote, and I invite all members of this House to join me.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): I know you had mentioned that you were sharing your time. Unfortunately, it is now close to 10:15. There will be an opportunity when this bill is brought forward again for further debate, starting on the government side.

Second reading debate deemed adjourned.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): Unfortunately, it’s now almost 10:15, and this House stands recessed until 10:30.

The House recessed from 1014 to 1030.

Introduction of Visitors

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Before we do the introduction of guests, I wish to draw attention to the fact that we have a number of visitors in the Speaker’s gallery who are participating in Take Our Kids to Work Day. Welcome to the Ontario Legislature.

Introduction of guests?

M me France Gélinas: I have three introductions, but I will be very quick.

First, welcome to the advocates from the diabetes association who are here for World Diabetes Day. I’d like to welcome Russell Williams, Gabriella Simo, Stacey Livitski, Brian Halladay and Dr. Jan Hux.

Second, I’d like to welcome all of the nurse practitioners from across Ontario who have come to Queen’s Park today. Unfortunately, the plane from Sudbury was cancelled—no one from Sudbury. But I thank all the other nurse practitioners who are here today for the work that you do.

Third, the police association is here, with three police officers from my riding: Randy Buchowski, Joanne Sanche and Jack Sivazlian. Welcome to Queen’s Park. A pleasure to meet with you.

Mr. Stephen Crawford: Speaking of take your child to work day, I have a resident of Oakville who’s been a fantastic supporter in Oakville, Mr. Jeff Smith and his son, Matthew Smith.

Ms. Laura Mae Lindo: I would love to welcome Matthew Green to Queen’s Park. He’s been an amazing support to me. Thank you, Matthew. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

M me Marie-France Lalonde: C’est un plaisir d’accueillir the Ontario undergraduate students’ association, who are with us this morning, and particularly Matthew Gerritts, Richard Wu, Kathryn Kettle, Martyna Siekanowicz and Eddy Avila in the House. Welcome to our provincial Legislature.

Mr. Lorne Coe: I’m pleased to introduce to the Legislative Assembly Jamie Bramma, Randy Henning, Tim Morrison, Keith Aubrey, Brad Durst and Colin Goodwin. They’re all members of the Durham Police Regional Association. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Mr. Joel Harden: I’d like to welcome a local leader from Ottawa police here at Queen’s Park, Matt Skof.

I’d also like to welcome people here for take your child to work day: Dante Elis Washington and his mom, Ipek Kabatas.

Also, from the Ontario Undergraduate Student Alliance: Stephanie Bertolo, Vikram Farah, Shannon Kelly and Michael Del Bono. Welcome to the people’s House.

Mr. Deepak Anand: I’d like to welcome civilian directors Jay Yocom and Mike Ardito, and my friend Adrian Woolley, president of the Peel Regional Police Association from my great riding of Mississauga–Malton.

Mr. Mike Schreiner: There are a number of people from Guelph here this morning, so I’ll try to be quick.

I’d like to introduce Abby McGillis and her dad, Eric, who are in the members’ gallery. I would also like to introduce Adam Donaldson from Guelph Politico, who is in the press gallery.

I’d also like to introduce Matt Jotham, president of the Guelph Police Association, who’s here with all members of the Police Association of Ontario.

Finally, I’d like to introduce Scott Butler, my constituent, who’s here representing the Ontario Good Roads Association. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Mr. Rudy Cuzzetto: I’d like to welcome my canvass chair, Philip Menecola, here today.

Ms. Jennifer K. French: As we’ve heard, the Police Association of Ontario is here today. I was pleased to have a meeting with folks from my area: Colin Goodwin, our president-elect, Keith Aubrey and Brad Durst, and I see Bruce Chapman over there. So welcome to Queen’s Park.

M me Nathalie Des Rosiers: I’d like to welcome to Queen’s Park Elizabeth Lindsay, Michael Del Bono and Shannon Kelly from OUSA. I had a great conversation with them yesterday, and they’re very happy to be at Queen’s Park.

Mr. Stephen Lecce: Good morning, Speaker. I want to welcome Roman Corsetti from the great riding of King–Vaughan as part of take your constituent’s kid to work day.

Ms. Teresa J. Armstrong: It’s my pleasure today to welcome all the student leaders and the president, Brittany Greig, from the College Student Alliance. Thank you for coming to the Legislature today, discussing how important colleges are to the province and the education system.

Hon. Peter Bethlenfalvy: I’d like to recognize, on bring your kids to work day, two daughters of my staffer Alexis Easton: Brooksley Easton and Vivianne Easton. Welcome to the House.

Ms. Jill Andrew: Good morning, Mr. Speaker. I would like to welcome Mr. Ferroni from Forest Hill Collegiate Institute and his wonderful class, law equity and social justice, to our House and your House.

Hon. Sylvia Jones: Speaker, please join me in welcoming the executive from the Police Association of Ontario: President Bruce Chapman; executive director Stephen Reid; policy counsel Mike Duffy; and PAO directors Trevor Arnold, Keith Aubrey, Mark Baxter, Clint Eastop, Cliff Priest, Dave MacLean and Larry Wood. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Mr. Kevin Yarde: I would also like to welcome, from the Police Association of Ontario, Michael Duffy, Trevor Arnold, Jay Yocom, Adrian Woolley, Tony Hart, Jeff Banton, Andy Adams, Mike Ardito and Bruce Chapman.

Mr. Sam Oosterhoff: I have the pleasure of introducing a number of constituents today. We have Paul Di Ianni from the town of Lincoln; and we have Michael Kirkopoulos, the CAO of the town of Lincoln, and Her Worship Mayor Easton of Lincoln today with us in the members’ gallery. Thank you very much for joining us.

We also have a constituent, Cliff Priest, who is here today as a director with the Police Association of Ontario.

We also have a constituent, Sean Reid, and his daughter. Thank you.

Ms. Doly Begum: It’s my honour to introduce Kody Fox to the House today. Kody Fox is here from the great riding of Scarborough Southwest, and he’s here as part of Take Our Kids to Work Day. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Hon. Raymond Sung Joon Cho: I’m very happy to welcome Veronique. She is the daughter of my chief of staff. She’s on the Take Our Kids to Work Day program today.

Ms. Peggy Sattler: I am delighted to welcome Daniel Parada, in the public gallery, who is a constituent of London West and is here with OSSTF for Take Our Kids to Work Day.

Mr. David Piccini: I would like to welcome to the Legislature four nurse practitioners from Trent Hills Family Health Team: Laurie, Marion, Samantha and Carole. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Also, a warm welcome from the government to the College Student Alliance. It was great to speak with them this morning.

Ms. Sandy Shaw: I would also like to add my welcome to Matthew Green here today in the House. He’s a former city councillor from the Hammer, and he’s also currently the executive director of the Hamilton Centre for Civic Inclusion. Thank you for joining us here today, Matthew.

Hon. Victor Fedeli: I would like to welcome two long-time friends from North Bay, with the North Bay Police Service, Noel Coulas and Aaron Northrup.

Mr. John Vanthof: I would like to welcome Susan Brekveld to the House today. She’s part of Take Our Kids to Work Day. She’s here all the way from Thunder Bay. You might remember her mom, Peggy Brekveld, who’s actually working somewhere in the precinct today.

Ms. Andrea Khanjin: It’s my pleasure to acknowledge that is today is environment industry day at the Legislature, hosted by the Ontario Environment Industry Association. I want to welcome the individuals here from ONEIA: Terry Obal, analytics and vice-chair; and Alex Gill, the executive director.

Miss Monique Taylor: It gives me great pleasure to welcome some of the POA folks whom I will be meeting with today: our president from Hamilton, Clint Twolan; joining him will be Jaimi Bannon, Jason Leek and Ken Putt. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Mr. Sheref Sabawy: I would like to welcome the CSA students, Brittany Greig and Andrew MacNeil—and a special thanks to the Centennial College Student Association, my home college. I would like to acknowledge Jem Hewitt, Matheus Ferreira, Justin Paolo Lim, Sam Casais and Ali Hassan for their attendance.

Mr. Percy Hatfield: On behalf of the member from Windsor West and the member from Essex, I would like to welcome three members of the Windsor Police Association here today: Pete Mombourquette, Ed Parent and Ken Price. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Hon. Ernie Hardeman: I would like to introduce two nurse practitioners from Ingersoll in my riding. Nancy Bradley and Sue Tobin are here with the Nurse Practitioners’ Association of Ontario today. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Ms. Catherine Fife: It’s my pleasure to welcome nurse practitioners from Kitchener-Waterloo, Sahar Haji and Krysta Cameron. Welcome to Queen’s Park today.

Ms. Jill Dunlop: I would like to introduce my guests, Sean Reid from the Progressive Contractors Association of Canada and his daughter Jordan, who is also a grade 9 student visiting with us today.

Mr. Paul Miller: I would just like to welcome everybody who hasn’t been mentioned. Thanks.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): We’re getting to that point, I’m afraid.

Hon. Jeff Yurek: I have three special guests here today for Take Our Kids to Work Day: Hannah Rimnyak from St. Joe’s, former page Maggie Yurek, and my lovely wife, Jenn Yurek. Welcome to the Legislature.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): I believe the clock would indicate that we’ve expired the time for introduction of guests. I, too, would like to welcome everyone who is here, and I apologize to the members who didn’t get a chance to introduce their guests individually.

Wearing of pins

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): The member for Nickel Belt on a point of order.

M me France Gélinas: I believe, Speaker, you will find we have unanimous consent to wear a pin in honour of Diabetes Awareness Month in November.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): The member for Nickel Belt is seeking the unanimous consent of the House to allow the members to wear a pin. Agreed? Agreed.

Decorum in chamber

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): I wish to make a comment before we begin question period on the number and duration of standing ovations which have interrupted question period since we began this Parliament. I have heard from a number of members on this, and so I wish to make a statement.

The standing orders do not empower the Speaker to prohibit standing ovations, and I recognize that members will occasionally wish to demonstrate their approval and support for something another member has said in the House. However, the Speaker is responsible for maintaining order and decorum in the House, and members will know that their activities in this House are televised and the public is tuning in to watch the proceedings, I believe in increasing numbers. We are all accountable for our behaviour in this House.

I have made it a practice to order that the clock be stopped when it appears the standing ovations are taking away time from question period to the disadvantage of members on all sides of the House who might be on the list and who are anticipating the opportunity to ask a question.

I would draw to members’ attention that the National Assembly in Quebec does not allow ovations or applause of any kind during their proceedings. It was a decision that they took themselves and that enhances decorum, which ultimately, I would expect, enhances public respect for their members and their Parliament as a whole in the province of Quebec.

I have also, on occasion, not been able to hear the member who has the floor, who’s speaking, when there’s a standing ovation—sometimes I’ve not been able to see them either—and that’s a problem which has to be considered.

I would therefore respectfully ask members to keep their ovations to a minimum to enhance the decorum in this place.

Applause.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Thank you. Yes, no standing ovation for that.

Oral Questions

Ontario Power Generation

Ms. Andrea Horwath: I want to start by, as leader of the official opposition, welcoming the POA and Bruce Chapman, their president, whom I met with several weeks ago, just to say thank you to the police officers who keep our province safe, and to continue to work with you on issues of privatization, making sure you’re able to stay well and continue to do your jobs with the support of your province.

Speaker, my first question is to the Premier, who apparently missed me yesterday. Alykhan Velshi served the Conservative Party in many roles, both in Ottawa and here at Queen’s Park. He was even chief of staff to the Minister of Finance during his brief stint as interim leader. Yesterday, the Premier struggled to answer some basic questions. Will the Premier today at least admit to knowing Mr. Velshi?

Hon. Doug Ford: Through you, Mr. Speaker: The OPG is responsible for its own staffing issues.

But let me tell you what we have done when it comes to the energy file. We ended up saving 7,500 jobs out in Pickering that the Leader of the Opposition wanted to get rid of. That’s 7,500 families that wouldn’t have been able to pay their mortgage or put food on their table, but that wasn’t a concern to the Leader of the Opposition.

We cancelled the worst contract there was. It was the green energy scam, I call it—the Green Energy Act. We saved $790 million for the taxpayers of this great province cancelling these contracts—again, a waste of money.

We ended up getting rid of the hydro board and the CEO. We’re turning hydro around because the number one issue when I criss-crossed this province was energy costs—energy costs to businesses and energy costs to people who couldn’t afford to pay their hydro bills, choosing between heating and eating.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Members take their seats. Stop the clock.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Members please take their seats. Should I reread my statement?

Interjection: Yes.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Hansard has it. I don’t have it. Start the clock.

Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Back to the Premier: When did the Premier learn that Mr. Velshi had been offered a job at Ontario Power Generation?

Hon. Doug Ford: Through you, Mr. Speaker: I think this is the third day. They just keep repeating and repeating the question. OPG is responsible for hiring their own staff.

But I want to thank the Leader of the Opposition for giving me an opportunity to tell the Leader of the Opposition what people really care about. There are so many accomplishments this government has made. As a matter of fact, there is no government in the history of Ontario that has ended up getting more done in four months than this government here. I mentioned the 7,500 jobs that the Leader of the Opposition wanted to axe.

We put a memorial up for the veterans of the Afghan war; reformed OHIP, supporting people in the greatest need; fought for Ontario on the illegal border crossers; cancelled wasteful contracts, as I said, of $700 million; the independent financial commission to look into who was spending the money the last 15 years; a line-by-line audit—

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Thank you.

Final supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: At any point in the history of Ontario did the Premier discuss Mr. Velshi’s appointment to Ontario Power Generation with his chief of staff, Dean French?

Hon. Doug Ford: Through you, Mr. Speaker: I want to thank the Leader of the Opposition for giving me more time to finish all our accomplishments.

We fought for Ontario jobs during NAFTA, protecting farmers and protecting steelworkers. We ended a nasty strike at York University. We announced the Better Local Government Act, reducing the size and cost of government, getting rid of the politicians in downtown city of Toronto who couldn’t get anything done. We challenged the federal government on the carbon tax; we’ll be going to court over that. We returned a buck-a-beer; provided $100 million to fight forest—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Order on the opposition benches.

Hon. Doug Ford: —invested $25 million to fight guns and gangs; Hydro One Accountability Act; announced $182 million for nine OPP stations; froze driver fees; protecting free speech in universities; increased GO Train service in the GTHA; scrapped the—

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Thank you.

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Thank you.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Stop the clock. I’ll remind the House—to quote a former Speaker—when the Speaker stands, you have to sit down. Restart the clock.

Next question.

Ontario Power Generation

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My next question is for the Premier. The Premier has now had 24 hours to review the newspaper reports and confer with his chief of staff, Dean French. Can he now confirm or deny that his chief of staff, Mr. French himself, contacted the chair of Ontario Power Generation concerning the appointment of Alykhan Velshi to an executive position?

Hon. Doug Ford: Minister of Energy.

Hon. Greg Rickford: Ontario Power Generation is responsible for their own staffing decisions. OPG is a crown corporation that is responsible for their own staffing decisions. Put differently, all staffing decisions at OPG are made by OPG.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Yesterday, the CEO of OPG came to Queen’s Park but refused to discuss employment matters with reporters, and government MPPs intervened to ensure that he did not take any questions about this matter at the fiscal transparency committee—the fiscal transparency committee.

Will the Premier ask OPG to make the details of Mr. Velshi’s contract public?

Hon. Greg Rickford: The biggest potential human resources challenge for OPG would have been that if the anti-nuclear democratic party had power, 6,500 people would have been cut loose. Can you imagine a skilled workforce like that, out in beautiful Pickering country, looking for work, Mr. Speaker? I can’t imagine it.

I’ve looked at all of our nuclear facilities. I’m getting to visit every single one, meeting great workers who are committed to making sure that Ontario has a stable source of electricity from nuclear power. These are significant assets that we appreciate. We appreciate those people, and thank God they didn’t have that human resource problem.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Stop the clock. Members, please take your seats.

Restart the clock. Final supplementary.

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Speaker, the Premier’s job is to set a high ethical standard, govern in the public interest, and be accountable to the people who elected him. Instead, the Premier seems to think his job involves doing whatever he wants, whenever he wants, and answering to no one at all.

A Conservative insider is going to get paid half a million dollars for a single day’s work. The Premier’s office is responsible for this.

Will the Premier finally show some leadership and tell Ontarians what role his office played in this abuse of the people’s money?

Hon. Greg Rickford: Let’s turn human resources into an opportunity and talk about what this government has done over the past four and a half months. We’ve been eliminating the barriers that cost employers and small businesses money—to be competitive, creating jobs. There’s a human resource opportunity. It used to be an issue during the decade of darkness. But the people of Ontario asked us to flip the switch on, brighten their horizon and create opportunities for jobs, so that the only human resource issues that businesses in this province had was the opportunity to hire more people.

Government contract

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My next question is for the Minister of Finance. For weeks now, the government has refused to disclose basic information about contracts awarded by the Ontario Cannabis Store. These are contracts awarded using public money. Will the minister disclose who has won the lucrative contract?

Hon. Victor Fedeli: Thank you very much for the question. The Ontario Cannabis Store has a number of contracts and agreements with different businesses and entities that provide the recreational cannabis to its customers. I’ll break it down succinctly. We begin with 32 federally licensed producers, some like Canopy Growth and Up Cannabis. There’s a long list that has been published of the 32 licensed producers that we purchase from. That product goes to our warehouse, which not only warehouses the products but distributes them. That OCS warehouse was competitively tendered and negotiated under the previous government. Canada Post delivers the orders from Shopify.

Speaker, security at our warehouse is a top priority, and we will not be sharing information on the—

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Thank you. Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Speaker, the minister might think it’s idiotic to be concerned about how the government spends public dollars, but after this past week, people have a right to be concerned about this government’s decision-making.

When was the contract awarded? How much was it awarded for? And who’s getting the money?

Hon. Victor Fedeli: Once again, we begin with the 32 published federally licensed producers. We know that we have a warehouse, which I’ll talk about again in another moment. We have Shopify, who won the contract by the previous government to run our online operation. And we have Canada Post, who deliver it.

When it comes to the warehouse, it was competitively tendered and negotiated by the previous government.

Security of the OCS warehouse is the top priority. We will absolutely not be sharing further information on the day-to-day operations. This is a secure facility. The security of those employees is of paramount concern. We’re very disappointed that the NDP want to pursue information of such a supremely confidential nature.

Police

Ms. Natalia Kusendova: Good morning, Speaker. My question this morning is for the Minister of Community Safety and Correctional Services. Congratulations on her new portfolio.

Constituents and police officers in my riding of Mississauga Centre have been voicing their concerns about the treatment of our hard-working and dedicated front-line police officers in instances where they administer naloxone to overdose victims. Under a regulation in the Police Services Act, police officers have been required to report to, and be investigated by, the SIU in an incident in which a civilian dies after naloxone is administered. This requirement is placing unfair burdens on our dedicated front-line officers who perform their dangerous duties day in and day out to keep our Ontario communities and families safe.

To the minister: Could you please update the members of this Legislature on how our government for the people is addressing this process which unfairly burdens our brave front-line officers?

Hon. Sylvia Jones: It would be an honour. Thank you to the member for Mississauga Centre, because this is an important issue.

Because the Police Association of Ontario is here, because so many front-line officers are joining us today, I would like to publicly thank you on behalf of our government for the important work you do. Know that you have a government who understands the challenging work that you do as front-line officers and that you have a government who is listening.

It was a great honour yesterday but, frankly, I really have to give all the thanks to Minister Tibollo, because he did all the work in preparation for the announcement, so thank you. It’s very much appreciated.

I will speak to the specifics of the naloxone change in my supplementary.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Supplementary.

Ms. Natalia Kusendova: I thank the minister for her response. It is very reassuring to hear that our government for the people is treating the dedicated and hard-working men and women of Ontario’s police services with respect. Our dedicated front-line officers perform some of the most dangerous work in the province, and we must ensure that they have the necessary tools they need to perform their work safely. I am proud to stand here today knowing that our government for the people is taking action to ensure that the men and women of our police services are better equipped to continue saving lives and keeping our communities safe.

Speaker, can the minister please explain why this amendment to the Police Services Act needed to be made?

Hon. Sylvia Jones: As the member knows, currently today, our front-line officers, our paramedics and our firefighters, are able to use naloxone. They don’t have to go through an unnecessary criminal investigation if something goes wrong, and yet, before this small regulatory change was made, our police officers did. It wasn’t fair. It wasn’t right.

We made that change, and I’m proud to stand with Premier Ford and our government to support the people of Ontario.

Police investigations

Mr. Taras Natyshak: My question is to the Premier. This is a question about ensuring impartiality in our criminal justice system as police investigate the activities of the Ontario PC Party. As the Premier well knows, there are multiple police investigations involving the party that he currently leads.

Yesterday, the government admitted that it would be improper for the government to involve itself in an investigation. For this reason, will the Premier agree to bring in an independent special prosecutor to ensure the complete impartiality of this investigation?

Hon. Doug Ford: Through you, Mr. Speaker, as I’ve answered this a couple of times already: We can’t get involved in police investigations, but I’ll tell you, I was elected to be a leader of this party, to clean up Patrick Brown’s mess. That’s exactly what I did, and we’re moving this province forward in a positive way.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Supplementary.

Mr. Taras Natyshak: Speaker, unfortunately, the level and frequency of the scandals that we’re seeing is even making the Liberals blush in this House. It is of public importance that this investigation and eventual prosecutions are conducted fairly and impartially.

In the investigations into possible fraud in the PC nomination in Hamilton West, police report that witnesses have been so far uncooperative and refused to provide statements. This is very concerning, because the fact is that one of these candidates at the centre of this nomination battle is now safely employed within the government, working directly for the Minister of Health.

Speaker, something smells here and the public just won’t believe that the party under investigation can be trusted to prosecute itself. Will the Premier agree to bring in an independent special prosecutor to ensure the complete impartiality of this investigation?

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Members, please take their seats.

Premier?

Hon. Doug Ford: Through you, Mr. Speaker, the member from Essex is suggesting he doesn’t trust our police. He doesn’t trust the Hamilton police; he doesn’t trust any of the police. I can assure the member from Essex that I trust our police; I trust the investigation. Do you know something? I have faith because they’re accountable; they’re transparent. Unlike the NDP; you don’t know where they’re coming from. I have all of the faith in the world in our police across this province. They’re absolute champions. That’s who I have trust in. I don’t have trust in you.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Stop the clock. Once again, I’ll remind members to make their comments through the Chair.

Start the clock. Next question.

Forest industry

Ms. Christine Hogarth: My question is for the Minister of Natural Resources and Forestry. I’m pleased to hear that our government for the people will be conducting forestry round tables across the province to develop a comprehensive forestry strategy. Currently, Ontario’s forestry sector contributes $15.3 billion to the economy and supports roughly 150,000 jobs in approximately 260 communities across this province. Our forestry sector is a major economic driver in Ontario. However, under the previous government, the industry lost 51,000 jobs.

Mr. Speaker, the government is committed to bolstering Ontario’s forestry industry and repairing the damage inflicted by the previous Liberal government. Could the minister inform the House of the crucial importance of conducting his round tables and engaging with stakeholders?

Hon. John Yakabuski: I would like to thank the member for the question. I agree with the member that Ontario’s forestry industry is a major economic driver in this province, and I’m pleased to announce that I’ll be getting on a plane tonight and travelling to Sault Ste. Marie for the very first round table.

The forestry industry was neglected by the former Liberal government. Restrictions, regulations and tax burdens hindered the industry. Our forestry strategy will help local communities grow and thrive because, Mr. Speaker, Ontario is once again open for business.

These round tables will focus on gathering feedback from forestry stakeholders about the challenges and obstacles that are preventing the industry from growing like we know it can. The information gathered at these round tables will allow our government for the people to identify what we can do to help the industry and unleash its full potential as a driver for economic growth and prosperity, particularly in northern and eastern Ontario.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Supplementary.

Ms. Christine Hogarth: I would like to thank the minister for that response. I’m so glad to hear that our minister is starting right away with these forestry round tables, right now in my hard-working colleague’s riding of Sault Ste. Marie, and is continuing to engage with the industry through a number of round tables throughout the province, and through written submissions and online submissions.

There are so many hard-working Ontarians whose families depend on the forestry sector, and I’m pleased to hear that our government for the people is committed to strengthening the sector as a whole and opening up Ontario for business. Can the minister expand more on how our government is supporting the forestry sector in Ontario?

Hon. John Yakabuski: Again, thank you to the member for the question. Our government for the people has been clear that we are committed to opening up Ontario for business. The forestry strategy that we are developing will assist in doing just that. Our government will always value and stand up for our forestry industry.

Speaker, I was disappointed to hear the leader of the NDP disregard forestry and deem the Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry a “lower” portfolio. Thousands of Ontarians earn their living through forestry. Does the leader of the NDP consider them “lower” as well?

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Sorry. The Minister of Natural Resources has a loud voice, but the government side is so loud I can hardly hear him.

I would ask the minister to conclude his comments.

Hon. John Yakabuski: This government is committed to reducing red tape, improving efficiencies and identifying opportunities for innovation while ensuring sustainable forest management. Fortunately, we have a government for the people that will always stand by forestry. I can assure the member and this House that that will always be the case, regardless of what the leader of the NDP says.

Education funding

Ms. Marit Stiles: My question is for the Minister of Education. So far, this government’s record on education has been nothing but cuts, chaos and contradictions. They have cut $100 million in funding meant to tackle the school repair backlog, meaning kids could face another winter wearing hats and mitts inside the classroom. They cut the Parents Reaching Out Grants, grants that funded important programs aimed at engaging parents in their children’s education. They scrapped the modern sex ed curriculum, leaving young people without the tools they need to face issues like cyberbullying and consent, and to protect themselves from abuse.

This government has already taken so much out of education. Can the minister tell us what other cuts parents, students and educators should be bracing themselves for?

Hon. Lisa M. Thompson: Speaker, I stand before you today to tell you, with my hand on my heart, what I am going to cut out is the nonsense coming from that—

Interjections.

Hon. Lisa M. Thompson: —over there. She’s doing nothing but perpetuate fear, and it has got to stop. This is nonsense, what’s coming out of that member from Davenport—absolute nonsense. It has got—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): I had my earphone in. I couldn’t hear the Minister of Education because of the applause from the government side. I would ask the government members to consider that and think about it.

Supplementary?

Ms. Marit Stiles: I suspect that I hit a nerve.

Back to the minister: I am not surprised by this minister’s lack of response. In fact, last week, the government showed just how unwilling they are to talk about looming cuts. When a journalist asked what cuts this government has in store for our kids’ education, the minister’s staff replied, “Let’s ignore.” So much for transparency, Mr. Speaker; so much for accountability.

I ask again, can the minister tell us what further education cuts are coming, or is her government going to continue to ignore the real concerns of parents, students and educators across Ontario?

Hon. Lisa M. Thompson: Speaker, what we need to cut out of this House once and for all is the perpetuating of fear via nonsense politics.

The fact of the matter is this province is currently paying $1.426 million an hour in interest on our debt. I’m telling you that we need to be responsible in here. I’m hearing—and everybody needs to take note of this comment—that people are appreciating that we are taking our time with our line-by-line audit, cutting out the waste, because there was a lot of it over the last 15 years. I’m very proud of what my team is doing in a responsible manner to make sure we support our classrooms—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Stop the clock.

Mr. Roman Baber: It’s the nonsense democratic party.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): The member for York Centre will come to order.

Mr. Taras Natyshak: Your witty guys are supposed to be in the front row.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): The member for Essex will come to order.

Mr. Sam Oosterhoff: You’re so intolerant.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): The member for Niagara West will come to order.

Hon. Doug Ford: Guys, you run circles around them.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): The Premier will come to order.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): The House will come to order.

Start the clock. Next question.

Environmental protection

Mr. Mike Schreiner: My question is for the Premier. Yesterday, the Environmental Commissioner revealed that the previous government allowed raw sewage to be dumped in our rivers and lakes 1,327 times last year. This is disgusting. My daughter had one word for it: “gross.” This is our drinking water. This is the water we take our kids swimming, fishing and paddling in. We know that climate change will only make the situation worse.

One low-cost solution is to stop paving over our green space, so I’m asking today, Premier, will you commit today to protect and expand the greenbelt to defend the places we love and to protect our water?

Hon. Doug Ford: Minister of the Environment.

Hon. Rod Phillips: Mr. Speaker, through you to the member from Guelph, and thank you for the question: He is correct in noting that the Environmental Commissioner did deliver her annual report, and there was some troubling information about the previous government’s focus on water. He has spoken to me about this individually and personally as well. It’s something that will be part of the plan that we will have coming out at the end of the month with regard to the environment.

It’s an important consideration: clean water, clean air and clean land. What this party committed to in its election, and what we are committed to in our environmental plan that will be forthcoming, is to make sure that Ontarians have clean air, clean water and clean land. I should reference as well that we are still open for consultations on that. We’ve had over 5,000 Ontarians contribute, and they can continue to until Friday, at ontario.ca/climatechange.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Supplementary?

Mr. Mike Schreiner: I do hope the Premier will commit to protecting the greenbelt, though.

Yesterday also, the Insurance Bureau of Canada was here, raising alarm bells about the costs of climate change: $1.2 billion in insurable losses in the last nine months. That’s over $350 per household, yet the government has no plan to reduce these costs on families. I released a climate change strategy this morning. I forwarded it to the minister’s office. He is welcome to steal every idea in that plan.

My question to the Premier or the minister is this: Will the government today commit to pollution targets that meet our Paris obligations and leave a livable, affordable future for our children and grandchildren?

Hon. Rod Phillips: To the member from Guelph, I do appreciate both directly and today his input that he has provided. As I said, over 5,000 Ontarians have provided input directly, and we continue to gather that input.

The member from Guelph also—this morning he attacked our government. He attacked our government for getting rid of cap-and-trade, which was a commitment that we made during our election and part of the mandate that elected us. He attacked our government for fighting the Trudeau carbon tax—again, something we committed to. We won’t apologize for meeting our commitments. We won’t apologize for an environmental plan that protects families and protects the environment.

Long-term care

Ms. Goldie Ghamari: Before I begin, I would just like to welcome to the Legislature a personal friend and colleague of mine, Matt Skof, president of the Ottawa Police Association, as well as directors Barmak Anvari, Jamie McGarry and Brian Samuel. I look forward to meeting with them later today.

My question is for the Minister of Health and Long-Term Care. We have an aging population in this province and across our country. Our seniors built this great nation, fought in our wars and made Ontario what it is today. However, sadly, the previous government treated them as nothing but an afterthought for the past 15 years. We have over 30,000 people on wait-lists for long-term-care beds. In my riding of Carleton alone, these wait-lists are years long.

I know this is an issue the minister has advocated for passionately in the past. Can the minister please explain what is being done to invest in additional long-term-care beds across my riding of Carleton and Ontario?

Hon. Christine Elliott: I would like to thank the member from Carleton for this important question. Our government for the people is delivering on our promise to end hallway health care by taking urgent action to expand access to long-term care, reducing the strain on our health care system in advance of the upcoming flu season, and working with front-line health care professionals and other experts to transform the province’s health care system.

We are moving forward with building 6,000 new long-term-care beds across Ontario, representing the first wave of more than 15,000 new long-term-care beds that the government has committed to build over the next five years.

We told the people of Ontario that we would make our hospitals run better and more efficiently and we’d help get them the care they deserve. Mr. Speaker, we are keeping that promise.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Supplementary?

Ms. Goldie Ghamari: I’d like to thank the minister for her response. Through you, Mr. Speaker, I’m excited to hear that this is just the first wave of long-term-care beds and that we’ll see many more beds across Ontario in the coming years. It is clear that with our government for the people, help is on the way. We’ve done a lot in just four months, and I know that the minister is committed to ending 15 years of neglect. For 15 years, the previous Liberal government failed to take care of the seniors who worked to build Ontario up.

Could the minister please provide more details about our plan to show respect for Ontarians who expect and deserve quality long-term care?

Hon. Christine Elliott: Aside from creating more long-term-care beds, our government will be extending funding for spaces already operating in the hospital and community sectors across Ontario to help communities prepare for the surge that accompanies the upcoming flu season. Hallway health care is a multi-faceted problem that will require real and innovative solutions. Our government will continue to listen to the people who work on the front lines of our health care system as we develop a long-term transformational health care strategy to address hallway health care and end it.

Health care

M me France Gélinas: Ma question est également pour la ministre de la Santé et des Soins de longue durée.

For too long, Ontario’s families have been stuck waiting longer and longer for the health care that they need. In this week’s financial update, it is clear that cuts and privatization will be on the agenda for our health care system. The minister has said so much in recent speeches to the Ontario Hospital Association and others.

Can the minister lay out exactly how privatization and spending cuts will make it easier for people to find a family physician or to get the hospital care they need?

Hon. Christine Elliott: Mr. Speaker, through you, I feel it is really important to address, for all members of the Legislature and anyone watching these proceedings, the actual facts. In fact, I made no such statement. What we are going to do is expand health care across Ontario for the people who need it. That’s why we’ve committed to building or creating 5,000 new long-term-care beds within five years. That’s why we have committed to $3.8 billion over 10 years to create a connected and coordinated mental health system across Ontario. Those are the things that we’re concentrating on. That’s what we promised the people of Ontario we would deliver, and that is what we are going to deliver.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Supplementary?

M me France Gélinas: Speaker, when I hear the minister talk about innovation, I feel like I have seen this agenda before. It is clear during the minister’s speeches and during the resolutions that will be debated at the PC convention this weekend. When I see things such as a resolution to encourage public and private sector partnership in the delivery of the health care system, I get nervous, Speaker. Like Tommy Douglas, the NDP believes that care should be based on need, not on ability to pay, and that the private health care businesses should not be maximizing their profits on the backs of sick people.

Can the minister tell us which health care services her Conservative government plans to privatize next?

Hon. Christine Elliott: Let me be clear: No such thing is going to happen. There are many things that get discussed at party conventions. You have party conventions. The other parties have conventions. We have conventions. That does not mean that that’s going to become government policy—not at all.

In fact, what we are committed to is making sure that people have access to our health care programs across the province. We know that there are areas where that is not happening, and we’re going to concentrate on that. We are going to work on ending hallway medicine by creating those long-term-care spaces, by developing a long-term connected mental health and addictions strategy, by making sure that people get the home care services that they need. That’s what we are concentrating our efforts on: building up our services in Ontario so that all people will have access to them.

Curling championship

Mr. Daryl Kramp: My question today is for our fine Minister of Tourism, Culture and Sport. When we hear “Hurry, hurry!”, I’m not suggesting we accelerate the actions of this House; of course, what I am referring to is the Tim Hortons Brier, Canada’s annual curling championship. The winner of the 2020 curling championship will represent Canada a month later at the World Men’s Curling Championship from March 28 to April 5 in Glasgow, Scotland. Additionally, that winning team will return to defend its title as Team Canada in the 2021 Tim Hortons Brier.

Can the minister today inform this House of our government’s involvement with this tremendously important 2020 Brier?

Hon. Michael A. Tibollo: Thank you to the member from Hastings–Lennox and Addington for the question. I’m happy to tell the House today that after waiting for more than 50 years, Kingston will get its long-awaited second opportunity to host the world’s most famous national curling championship. The 2020 Tim Hortons Brier will be played from February 29 to March 8 in downtown Kingston. Kingston is home to one of the oldest curling clubs in Canada, and it’s fitting that the championships are coming back to the city.

Great sports like curling strengthen communities and bring us closer together. Additionally, the Tim Hortons Brier will prove to have a positive economic effect in Kingston and the surrounding area. It will create jobs and provide opportunities to meet and socialize. I congratulate the city of Kingston for this great achievement.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Supplementary.

Mr. Daryl Kramp: I’d certainly like to thank the minister for that response. Kingston last hosted the Brier in 1957, a long time ago—I even remember—when Alberta’s Matt Baldwin hoisted the tankard following a perfect 10-0 round-robin performance at the Kingston Memorial Centre.

But the Brier is not only an opportunity for Ontarians to come together and support our sports sector; it’s also a tremendous opportunity to promote the economic growth that is so important to all of these regions. Could the minister today elaborate on the importance of the Brier for Ontarians in all of our local communities?

Hon. Michael A. Tibollo: Thank you for that question. Ontario’s government for the people is open for business and committed to supporting the continued success of our sports sectors. In many communities across Ontario, curling is an essential part of our cultural heritage and our identity as proud Ontarians. It’s a time for all provinces and territories to come together for what is one of the most prestigious trophies in Canadian sport.

The Brier will be a positive economic and social benefit for Kingston and for all Ontarians, who will gather to watch the championship from across the region. That’s why I’m happy to congratulate Kingston today, and I look forward to the camaraderie and competition that will be taking place shortly in Kingston.

Anti-racism activities

Ms. Laura Mae Lindo: My question is to the Minister of Community Safety and Correctional Services. The Ontario Black Youth Action Plan was a commitment and investment in Black children, Black youth and their families. Funding meant enhanced youth outreach by youth workers who received anti-racism training in order to better support youth experiencing trauma or mental health challenges. Black youth and their families would also be connected with community-based services and resources, as well as provided with culturally appropriate mentorship.

To date, the Conservative government has not made combatting systemic anti-Black racism a priority, and has instead relied on pre-written scripts to evade talking about real action. Will the minister be continuing the funding for the Ontario Black Youth Action Plan? Yes or no?

Hon. Sylvia Jones: Thank you to the member of the NDP for the question. You know, it’s interesting to me that we hive off these individual issues, and yet when we say that we are reviewing all programs, we are looking at every single program that our government provides, to ensure that it is providing the appropriate outcomes and getting what the people of Ontario need and deserve; that’s what our responsibility is as government, and that’s what we are doing. Yes, it takes time. Yes, it is going to be thorough. But we are doing a line-by-line, program-by-program audit to ensure that the outcomes that were promised are actually being delivered.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Supplementary.

Ms. Laura Mae Lindo: Back to the minister: Not talking about systemic and institutionalized racism doesn’t make it go away. The Anti-Racism Directorate, which is something that the Ontario NDP has long been advocating for, was the government’s commitment to building a more inclusive society and its commitment to identifying, addressing and preventing systemic racism in government policy, legislation, programs and services.

It’s estimated that the racialized population in Ontario will be 48% by 2036, which means that the work of the Anti-Racism Directorate is critical for supporting the needs of our increasingly diverse population. Will the minister be maintaining the Anti-Racism Directorate with adequate resources to do their job: yes or no?

Hon. Sylvia Jones: I think it’s important for the members of the NDP to understand that we work as a team here together. And I am incredibly proud of my parliamentary assistant, the member from Brampton South, who is taking these files and taking the lead on it, because we understand the importance of protecting our young people. We understand the importance of ensuring that the programs we are providing are getting the outcomes that we want. My parliamentary assistant, our team member, the member from Brampton South, is doing that.

I know that with his thoroughness we will get there, with appropriate outcomes that actually are going to make a difference for the people and the children of Ontario.

Government accountability

Mr. Stephen Crawford: My question is for the President of the Treasury Board. My constituents are concerned about how years of Liberal mismanagement have left the province’s finances in terrible shape. They’re also concerned about how the damage wasn’t limited only to the public accounts, but to public trust. That’s why it was so important to hear, during a speech last week, that the President of the Treasury Board talked about restoring accountability and trust to government.

In fact, I was interested to see that, just yesterday, the President of the Treasury Board attended a town hall with employees from the ministry to answer many of their questions. Can the President of the Treasury Board please inform this House what actions the ministry is taking to reinstall transparency and accountability throughout government?

Hon. Peter Bethlenfalvy: I’d like to thank the member from Oakville for that thoughtful question. Since being sworn in, I have visited hundreds of the ministry staff in their offices to discuss what they do and how they are doing it. People are hungry for change. That’s why we’ve consulted public servants through our Big Bold Ideas Challenge, and we’ve received thousands and thousands of great ideas from our Ontario public service on how we can transform government.

My speech last week was called The Challenge of Our Generation. Well, it was made clear during the town hall yesterday that the staff of the Treasury Board Secretariat are ready and able to meet that challenge. I look forward to working with them and all of my colleagues as we transform government and serve the people of Ontario together.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Supplementary.

Mr. Stephen Crawford: Thank you to the President of the Treasury Board for the answer. I must say, it’s refreshing to have such an engaged and knowledgeable President of the Treasury Board.

It’s been said that no single person has a monopoly on good ideas. That’s why the Planning for Prosperity survey has received over 26,000 ideas from members of the public eager for change. Only by consulting a wide range of Ontarians can we understand what actions we need to take to repair the years of damage caused by Liberal mismanagement.

It’s important that we ensure our province is modern and fiscally sustainable for this generation and for the next. Can the President of the Treasury Board please inform this House what ideas were brought forward in the TBS town hall concerning modernizing the public service?

Hon. Peter Bethlenfalvy: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and again, through you, thank you to the member for that question.

Yesterday, as I looked out at the crowd at the town hall, I was struck by the young, diverse and many talented people that we have in Treasury Board Secretariat. In fact, a TBS employee is here today. Colin—I don’t know where he is in the gallery—is responsible for the digital documents in cabinet to support our meetings. That’s the kind of modernization that we need to continue to drive.

Mr. Speaker, it’s up to all of us to work together as we deliver a modern, sustainable government that serves the people, not the other way around. I am confident that, together, we will meet the challenge. We have to, for this generation and for future generations. Together, we are restoring trust, we are renewing accountability, and we are re-establishing transparency.

Employment standards

Ms. Catherine Fife: My question is to the Minister of Economic Development, Job Creation and Trade. One hundred and thirteen people applied to appear before the committee that will analyze rollbacks of our employment and labour standards, just tomorrow. That’s 113 people for only 20 spots, over a five-hour period, over one day. These people applied from Peterborough, from Barrie, from Thunder Bay, from Ottawa, from Cambridge, from Brantford and from Chatham. It’s only for the people who can make it to Toronto, just tomorrow.

Does the minister think that that is enough consultation on this regressive piece of legislation?

Hon. Todd Smith: Thanks very much for the question this morning, and I’m pleased to answer it. Bill 148 was the most harmful piece of legislation that was brought forward for businesses in Ontario in our generation. We ran an election in the spring on making changes to Bill 148, to ensure that Ontario was open for business again. I can tell you that when Bill 148 was introduced by the Liberal government, our members went out then and met with business owners, employers and even employees across the province and heard directly from them that this piece of legislation, Bill 148, was killing jobs across Ontario. It was a job killer, Mr. Speaker.

Since the election, my two parliamentary assistants, Skelly and Parsa, have been fanning out and hearing directly from employers as well. We have heard loud and clear that we are on the right track here.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Supplementary?

Ms. Catherine Fife: The government is imposing serious, far-reaching, regressive changes to labour laws and employment standards across this province. Across the board, wages will be cut, paid sick days will be slashed and workplace rights removed. But the government doesn’t seem to have the decency to hear from the people of this province, from hard-working Ontarians.

Shutting down the voices of the people of Ontario on a bill that will directly impact them is undemocratic and it affects the quality of the life of workers in this province. Premier, let the people in and let them be heard on this bill and make sure that you extend the delegations on Bill 47. Will you do the right thing? Will you?

Hon. Todd Smith: Mr. Speaker, I can tell you that when the Liberals introduced Bill 148 in this House, we heard loud and clear from people across Ontario that that piece of legislation—which was supported by the third party at the time; potentially headed for third-party status again—wasn’t doing anything to grow the economy in Ontario. It was killing jobs in Ontario. It was sending employers outside of our jurisdiction to the United States.

Tack on the high cost of electricity—the NDP supported that legislation as well, the Green Energy Act—and tack on the cap-and-trade, Mr. Speaker. The NDP supported the Liberals on that piece of legislation, as well. These guys have done everything they can to drive jobs out of Ontario. We’re doing everything we can to make sure that Ontario is open for business.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Stop the clock. Order.

Start the clock.

Assistance to farmers

Mr. Robert Bailey: Mr. Speaker, to you and through you to the Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs: This year